Erik Weinstein, Theil Capital (From Elsewhere) A, fan. But a few comments 1) Eri

Erik Weinstein, Theil Capital

(From Elsewhere)

A, fan. But a few comments

1) Eric ends up describing the elusive goal of reducing discretionary economic *policy* to non-discretionary *rule of law*. The way he expresses it is just unclear. This is the holy grail of political, and legal as well as economic and social science.

2) Regarding the ‘new economy’. Perhaps, it’s rather better to state that the production of commons in the market for commons (politics) by the demonstration of behavior in the commons, is of greater value in producing goods for consumption, than the production of goods, services, and information in the market for consumption (private goods), when the ability to organize people by voluntary incentives (capitalism and markets) is no longer possible because of the excess of labor, and limited contribution of labor to that process.

3) Unstated in Eric’s assumptions is a concept of ‘We’ evolved under the enlightenment seizure of the organs of the state from the aristocracy, and its universalism under the subsequent influence of Cosmopolitanism and the Industrial Revolution, and my understanding is that this concept of ‘we’ is disintegrating along with the ‘luxury’ of the cosmopolitan presumption.

4) Because of the ‘we’ question (the value of nation states, because of the dead weight of the underclasses under Cosmopolitanism), as far as I can tell, the most successful group evolutionary strategy is to force new-normative behavior into nations with large underclasses. And I am all but certain that it is this return-to-normal that will play out.

5) What Eric does not mention is the similarity between silicon valley and the german princedoms wherein monarchies fought for status and wealth by sponsoring talents across the spectrum. Rather than cosmopolitan solutions I suggest that this is the reason that the germans nearly brought about the second scientific revolution and it’s consequential second enlightenment pre-war. And that this is the model we should take from Silicon Valley, not the fact that Silicon valley is

In other words, Eric is making the progressive error, common in the Cosmopolitans and Postmoderns that the assumption of growth that the Capitalist state relies upon, is not the assumption he himself relies upon. Bigger is only better if capital is brought to people rather than people to capital.

As far as I an tell there is no means of constructing a higher incentive than kin, when macro incentives fail, and the choice is between absorbing far more risk and change and increased competition, or creating scarcity and benefitting from it.

This is how I position the worldwide shift at present. My understanding of the 20th century ‘overstatement’ of economics and mathematics is marginally indifferent from Eric’s. But my understanding of human history is that there is absolutely nothing unique about our present condition other than scale. And one can ‘hope’ and ‘pray’ and ‘aspire’ and ‘labor’ to bring about a solution that continues evolving the world to what amounts to a universal caste system, but the mathematics of the formation of voluntary organizations of production in all the markets: association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, and group evolutionary strategies, suggests that it’s not possible. But that a larger number of smaller polities can achieve those ends without expanding the underclasses and causing the ‘problem’ that Eric is leaving unstated: the market for human beings will not bear goods for that which has no demand – other than kinship.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute.

Kiev, Ukraine.